From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 22:28:26 +0000
Fwd Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 11:00:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Roswell Crash? - Bourdais


 >From: Gildas Bourdais <gbourdais@wanadoo.fr>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 16:33:58 +0100
 >Subject: Re: Roswell Crash?

 >>From: Mac Tonnies <macbot@yahoo.com>
 >>Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:08:50 -0800 (PST)
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Re: Roswell Crash?

 >>>From: Alan Kerrigan <akerrigan3@comcast.net>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 13:58:09 -0500
 >>>Subject: Roswell Crash?

 >>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993@aol.com>
 >>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
 >>>Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 11:06:45 EST
 >>>Subject: Re: Frank Kaufmann Exposed

 >>>Has anyone considered the military having a lucky day with the
 >>>Roswell crash. Could the saucer have crashed into Project Mogul?

 >To all

<snip>

 >And Pflock concludes - "My Flight 9 notion had been
 >shot down".

 >Well, maybe not for the collision theory.

<snip>

 >A tentative scenario would be now:

 >Collision in the evening, or night of July 3 with Flight 9. The
 >army discovers the impact site, no very far north of Roswell,
 >during the same night or on Friday July 4.

 >They retrieve the craft and bodies the same day, or during the
 >following night.

 >Mack Brazel finds the debris field the same day, talks about it
 >on Saturday 5 at Corona, and goes to Roswell on Sunday 6.

 >Now, another problem is still the absence of radar reflector.
 >From where did come the debris shown in the office of Gal Ramey?
 >Perhaps from White Sands, for instance - why not?

 >Another difficulty is the description of flower tape, first by
 >Brazel, and later by his daughter Bessie. But Brazel could have
 >been taught to say that (at a time when the balloon explanation
 >was being staged). Since Bessie was not there, anyway, according
 >to her family and neighbors, she may have remembered another
 >balloon discovery, before or after the crash.

 >I don't say that this is the truth - only that it does not seem
 >impossible, apparently. Perhaps we will know more, if new
 >witnesses can be found?


Gildas,

A major problem with this speculation is this: Why should an
interplanetary, intergalatic, or otherwise craft constructed of
materials that can't be bent, broken, or burnt be done in by a
collision with a flimsy balloon? That doesn't make any sense.

  - Dick